Mad Dogs and Englishmen

http://neo-prodigy.livejournal.com/1016512.html#comments

No seriously. Ignore the god-awful pun in the title and look. It's damn funny.

Recently, Australia decided that all people being equal and capable of making their own decisions, they would relax the prohibition against women serving actively on the battlefield, and make all branches of the military equal in terms of gender. I applaud their decision, and hope it's implimented everywhere.

And then I saw that some feminist groups are 'torn' on the subject, citing concerns about how women are more 'sensitive' and 'physically weaker' than men, and thus shouldn't be in active roles on the battlefield.

I cannot tell you how pig-biting mad this makes me.

Here we are, the feminists, the ones who are supposed to be tearing down the destructive, miserable, restrictive world of the patriachy, and these idiotic morons are propping it up! This statement that women should be restricted in their roles in active service, is as good as telling us that women can't be relied upon to make informed decisions about their lives and what they are capable of, and thus should be descriminated against for their own good.

Sound familiar?

Oh yeah, really damn familiar, I think we've heard this line something like ten million times where women's rights are concerned.

There will be limits on who can serve actively on the battlefield, of course there will be. You will have to be mentally stable, physically fit, be able to withstand the rigours of combat, to carry equipment and use it, etc. What it won't have is 'and you have to be a guy'. Yes, it will be harder for women to fulfill these criteria, our bodies do put us at a disadvantage. But we can do it, and if we want to do it, we should be able to.

This, really comes back to the unfair advantages given by the patriarchy. And yes, women do have them. Not as many as men do, but they do do exist. Just ask Fathers 4 Justice. I knew a guy who was a member, and he was only allowed to see his children once a year for a few days. When my parents divorced, my mother could have made sure we never saw our father again (she didn't, but that was here choice). But some feminist branches are curously silent on that front, because in this the patriarchy has given us an advantage. 'Women's roles are to be mothers', it trumpets, which given women who want to be mothers an advantage.

Look people, this isn't fair. Our aim is to make things fair, but that means we have to throw off our golden chains as well as our iron ones. If we want women to have equal representation in the workplace, we have to let women be free to choose where that workplace can be, even if it puts them in danger. If we want the option of have fullfilling careers, we have to give up the automatic custody of our children. If we want to be taken seriously as equals, then 'women and children first' will have to become just 'children first'.

In other news, everyone's favourite attack monkey has jumped on the 9/11 conspiracy theorist bandwagon only to be lain the smackdown by Al Qaeda who are pissed their sole moment of glory in ... EVER was denied and, to add insult to injury, given to the Jews. Fun, fun, fun, popcorn is being passed around, please let all of you die in some matter/anti-matter explosion of pure stupid and rid the world of your mess.

Anyeway, apart from this spark of funny from the world's top joke country next to North Korea, I have successfully made a patio. Paramour did the bricking, but I got rid of the weeds, leveled the ground, covered it with brick, sand, cement, fire and salt (no expenses spared for knotweed) and finally slabs four inches thick. I also discovered an actual path and flowerbed lurking under all the rubbish. The result is a rather nice two-level patio with a path down one side with a flowerbed, which still needs to be fenced off but it otherwise great. I have been spending the last two days doing Nothing Much because my fingers are still healing.

So Israel is grabbing up land with illegal settlements right, and as they do so it brings more and more Palestinian people into Israel. The more of them go into Israel, the less and less Jewish Israel is. How long will it be until the Jewish state isn't that Jewish any more?

(assuming I don't end up studying, in fifty years time, 'Comparative Genocide, the victims become the killers, a comparison of the Holocaust and the Israel v Palestine slaughterhouse curpstomp-a-thon)

"When subtlety fails, we must simply make do with cream pies."

Gram the torches and pitchforks! The monster's on the run! Drive him to the artic and drown him in the ice floes!

So I saw the documentary with Pterry on assisted dying and it was really sad and heartbreaking and sort of obscene when they showed that guy's last moments (it finally happened, someone died on television. It is a sad day for humanity), and then there was a discussion on Newsnight. I'm not sure they achieved more than hot air there. The two most vocal on the anti-side was a spoksperson for disabled rights (who came across as being a bit of a broken record and not really taking into account the answers she was getting but she was making important points) and the random Bishop who seems to have become a fixture in these sorts of things and was being generally against the idea in a woolly sort of 'I'm totally not being religious really!' sort of way. He was completely useless and I wish they'd just booted him off and and replaced him with, say, someone who runs hospices and can push that side of the story instead of the 'ho-hum, gods says it's wrong' moron angle.

There was a third person on their side, a woman who I think was on the legal side of things but she didn't say much which was a damn shame. The pro-spokespersons were eloquent and making good points all round, and while no one's minds got changed I think it was a good showing for the pro-side. I'm still firmly on the side who believes that people shouls be allowed to take responsibility for their lives, including the ending of, but the disabled campaigner, while ranty, did push for the importance of firm regulation (although I wish she'd changed her spiel after the lady from Dignitas pulled out their list of rules) and I am kind of on board with that.

But seriously, ban the bishop next time. He was a waste of space and this is supposed to be a secular society.

And it had Jeremy Paxman. Seriously, who doesn't love Paxman?

Done by my favourite irrelevant newcasters, NMA world edition.

Al Qaeda: So, the idea is, right, we lash out and make our point through violent protest right? Make 'em hurt, show them they can't push us over, right?

People of the Middle East: Yeah, well, we don't really agree with your tactics, but things are so shitty here it's good to think there's something we can do, and having scapegoats does make things feel better.

*Decades of unrest, no real change and lots of dead people*

Tunisians: Y'know, we have an idea. It's a long shot, but it might just work.

*Tunisian protests happen*

Al Qaeda: Uh, right, see, they won't last, they're too busy being peaceful and shit.

*Tunisians win*

Al Qaeda: Um... okay, good for them, I guess.

Eqyptian people: Hey, that looks like a good thing! Let's try that!

Al Qaeda: Hey, seriously, it worked for the Tunisians, but the Egyptian government is backed by Die Amerikans! YOU'RE GOING TO NEED BOMBS!

Egyptian people: Yeah whatever dude, we're going to give it a go. Send you a postcard from Cairo.

*Egyptians win. Al Qaeda get their postcard*

People of the Middle East: Holy shit this stuff actually works! Peaceful protests all round!

Al Qaeda: Yeah, but... um...

People of the Middle East: Oh bog off dude. How long have your lot been trying to get the Americans out of Iraq and Afghanistan? Seven years at the last count. And aren't you all cowering in Pakistan somewhere? Shove off or join in.

Al Qaeda: Ummm... You're just going to be tools of Los Americanos! You're not real Muslims! And your mother smells!

People of the Middle East: Dude, go away. No one likes you.

I can't find the page, but I read a few days ago on the BBC website that a recent investigation into Israel's attack on the Turkish flotilla last year found the Israeli forces not guilty of wrongdoing. My mindset on the topic is that it doesn't matter what happened on the flotilla, since it's endangered Israel's relations with one of its few Middle Eastern allies, Turkey. But anyway, todday I was browsing the Al-Jazeera website, and found that this investigation was actually done by the Israelis.

I didn't go into too much detail, I know Al-Jazeera's stance on Israel and my stance is simply that if Israel carries on the way it has there isn't going to be an Israel in 50 years whether I support them or not, so whether or not they fudged the document is beside the point. My puzzlement is simply, why didn't the BBC say this? It seems like a pretty vital piece of info.

Anyway, just typing out loud here.